Commit 14a3f40a authored by Arjan van de Ven's avatar Arjan van de Ven Committed by Ingo Molnar

x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
Reported-by: default avatarDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Reported-by: default avatarChuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarArjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent 02dd0a06
......@@ -1443,12 +1443,8 @@ config SECCOMP
If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here.
config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
bool
config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
bool "Enable -fstack-protector buffer overflow detection (EXPERIMENTAL)"
select CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
---help---
This option turns on the -fstack-protector GCC feature. This
feature puts, at the beginning of functions, a canary value on
......
......@@ -76,7 +76,6 @@ ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
cc_has_sp := $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-x86_$(BITS)-has-stack-protector.sh
ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(cc_has_sp) $(CC) $(biarch)),y)
stackp-y := -fstack-protector
stackp-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL) += -fstack-protector-all
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-y)
else
$(warning stack protector enabled but no compiler support)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment